Tuesday, June 29, 2010

I am not interested in putting anyone either on or “off the hook.” I am interested in facts, in the truth of how things actually work, because I believe that no real changes can be made, in our own lives or in the world, unless based on a clear vision and understanding of what is actually happening and why. “Blame” is an emotionally-loaded opinion; facts are emotionally neutral, simply aspects of reality-as-it-is. What I present is (what I believe to be) a factually-true — if little understood — picture of how our world is formed.

So far as I’m aware, there has never been a reported case of a man becoming pregnant, gestating and giving birth to a child, of either gender. Nor of any similar event in any other sexual species. Indeed, the definition of “male” is based on this fact. It is females that lay eggs, or give birth. It is females who create new life. Males play a part, true, but not always. As I’ve noted before, the single key to understanding the entire “gender question” I found when I learned (in the book Why Males Exist) that there is a significant number of species which used to be sexual but no longer are — because the females thereof simply stopped producing males. These species still exist, quite successfully occupying ecological niches, but they consist entirely of females — though that may not be the correct term, since “female” implies “male,” and there are no males in these species.

Think about this: Males are optional. It is females who make males — and can not make males, if they so choose. Where power is exercised, there lies responsibility — and nowhere else. This is not a moral judgment; it is simply fact. If a member of one of these female-only species does something, you can’t “blame” the male — because there isn’t one.

And among humans this female creative power extends very much beyond the simple fact of physical gestation and birthing. Women are responsible not only for the fact that men exist, but for the character and quality of the men they create, because they naturally have charge of the child’s early development. Even feminists, for all their claim of “equality,” are clearly unwilling to give up this power — else why do mothers demand and get “custody” in over 80% of divorce cases? This is not “blaming the mother”; it is simply a statement of fact.

Certainly “we need to stand up to the image that women have for us.” But to do so effectively we must first understand that we are that image, the “little man” that Mommy created in her mind’s image of the “ideal” male (i.e. better than the lout she unfortunately married). The key word you use yourself: “unconscious.” So long as the process remains unconscious, it cannot be corrected. If our “clinging to mommy” is unconscious, then how will we ever “find our power”? It’s not necessary to “blame” mommy, but it is necessary to see clearly that how she created and reared me has made me what I am: to bring what has been unconscious into the light of consciousness. Only then will I have the opportunity to change the relationship, and the course of my life.

Very few men, in fact, ever entirely separate from Mother. In the past, however, there was commonly at least enough separation to provide a reasonably healthy balance of power in human culture. Nowadays, the process of male growth is being aborted at very early stages, so that most males never seem to gain enough stature to meet women without being flattened by them. Nearly every male I know up to age 50 is totally bewildered and intimidated by females — including, apparently, the proprietor of [the forum]. I understand why, and certainly he’s far from alone. There’s no “blame”; but if we’re ever to get out of this situation, we have to start seeing it clearly.

I use the word “aborted” deliberately. There are many ways a woman may “choose” (however unconsciously) to abort the full development and maturity of a child in her care. As I’ve said, I believe that the infant male circumcision program was and remains a pivotal event in the history of our culture, which has by now aborted several generations of American men, all of us permanently, unconsciously terrified of females, and thus severely handicapped in our encounters with them. Very few American men can see women clearly: the Gorgon is as much a part of Woman as the Angel. Thus the Myth of Female Innocence, which allows women to literally get away with murder.

As I said, I never saw the forum under discussion, but what I’ve learned here about the course of events is not surprising. That the proprietor of [the forum], a supposedly “anti-feminist” forum, would put a woman in authority over a men’s discussion there, only demonstrates how successful feminism has been in completely reshaping our culture’s thought processes. No man before the late 19th century, at the earliest, would ever have done such a thing.

Healthy human cultures understand that males (boys and men) need places to go and meet and be active together that are free of the female domination that every boy experiences from the beginning of his life, and spends most of the rest of his life trying to escape. And that he must escape if he is to become a man capable of giving women what they really need. A human society made up solely of women and children (of whatever age) will not survive.
.PreviousPhilalethes IndexNext

I like reading Craig Read's essays about Christianity and the Bible's role in forming the foundations of Western Civilization. He certainly isn't trying to convert you, and I believe he identifies as non-Christian - his articles are certainly written from a non-religious perspective anyway.

I've read one article of his from a while back, where he was discussing the theory (I don't think it was his theory, but someone else's) that the philosophies & moral values put forth from the Bible which helped form our society could likely be condensed in a non-religious version of a few hundred pages.

Society seems hell-bent on throwing the Bible out the window... but really, if the Bible and Christianity is the "cornerstone" of what Western Civilization is built upon, what do you think happens when that cornerstone is removed?

Saturday, June 26, 2010

“When I have one foot in the grave, I will tell the whole truth about women.
I shall tell it, jump into my coffin, pull the lid over me and say, ‘Do what you
like now’.” — Leo Tolstoy
.

Ghost Nation

There is a generation of men fading from view. This is a global
phenomenon but it is particularly noticeable (if this is not a
contradiction in terms) in the feminist countries.

Men, who have
been pushed to the margins in so many ways have simply elected to
disappear. I would imagine that as many as one million men have
disappeared either partially or completely from view in the United
Kingdom alone- meaning one in twenty or so of the native born male
population. For the most part this disappearance has occurred without
anyone noticing particularly because it has consisted of a gradual
fading from view rather than a dramatic exodus from the mainstream.

I
call these men the Ghost Nation and would like to introduce the term to
common use. How does one become a citizen of the ghost nation? It
occurs in many ways, very few of them are pleasant.

First of all
one may become a member of the ghost nation by virtue of coming from a
broken home. They have never seen either parent work and are told daily
that men and boys are useless. As a result they never get the habit of
work and drift around the edges of crime. Women coming from the same
background have an option that is not available to men and this is to
become pregnant. This ensures the basics of life and gives purpose.

Young
men have no anchor whatever, other than the gangs they may belong to
and other groups of men they may hate. He is how young men come to
religious fundamentalism, political extremism and violence- a life has
to be about something and these men’s lives are about nothing at all.

I call these men the ghost
army simply because they have no dealings with wider society and are
thus invisible to it. They rarely vote and own nothing. At present their
anger is purely destructive and tribal in nature- directed against
other races and other subcultures such as followers of other music.

Older
men are joining the ghost nation more consciously and for other
reasons. We (for this is my group) have clearer moral guidelines and
have rejected crime and parasitism. Nevertheless we have no place in the existing order of things. Some of us have lost everything through
divorce and realised that marrying in the feminist world is simple
slavery. We know that no matter how honest we may be the courts and
legal system will punish every good deed.

Therefore we work at
things that interest us. We become harder to control because we are no
longer willing to work inhuman hours for a woman’s approval.

Gradually
we extricate ourselves from everything we have been brainwashed to
believe is normal. This includes consumer credit, expensive chemical
sludge pretending to be food and that strange 19th century invention,
the career.

Gradually we eliminate, point by point, everything
that ties us to the feminist state. This takes both economic and
emotional form. Rather than let the media form our opinions for us
because we are too tired to do anything else, we form our views actively
on the internet.

Gradually, gradually we fade from view. We
cannot even talk to people who are still within the system because most
of them can only talk about their work.

To All:Read "Atlas Shrugged"
and see how nothing today is really any different than it was decades
ago when a brilliant and insightful woman chronicled the inevitable
results of a society addicted to destructive consumption. Decide whether
you are a creator or a looter, and whether you can commit to the
Pledge:

"I swear, by my life and my love for it, that
I will never live my life for the sake of another, nor ask another to
live for mine."

If you can, then: Harm none, do what thou wilt, shall be the whole of the law.

I feel that the main error [the forum] made was to have a woman administrator taking part in major changes in policy.

Indeed; this turned the forum into just another elementary-school classroom presided over by Miss Wormwood, an environment which few American males remember with pleasure. Not surprising that some apparently (I didn’t see the forum, all I know is what I’ve read about it here) responded by behaving like children — thus sadly providing yet more self-fulfilling prophecy for the feminist view of men.

The truth is, it is women’s use of the power they already have, as mothers, caretakers and teachers of the young, that determines the character of a culture. American women have decided, wherever in consciousness it is that such decisions are made, that they prefer their men to be perpetually children, because children are not in control of themselves, and thus — some of the time, anyway — easily controlled. The rest of the time, unfortunately, they are merely out of control; but this is a price that feminists seem to be willing to pay — since offensive male behaviour (including serious violence) “proves” that they are “right” about men.

The alternative would be to have developed, grown-up, adult men. Such men, masters of themselves, would not behave in the childish manner apparently exhibited by the offending posters on the forum (or here, for that matter — and the rants do not amuse me). But they also would not be easily controlled and manipulated by women.

This is the choice faced by women in every human culture; they can have whatever kind of man they want, but it takes adult women to realize that they need adult men.

My response to feminism remains simple: Where do men come from? If you don’t like the product, talk to the producer.
.PreviousPhilalethes IndexNext

Friday, June 25, 2010

Some years ago, through the usual discourse of mindlessly arguing with people on the internet, I met a woman online who went by the handle of “Selkie.” I had no idea what a selkie was, so I typed it into Google and discovered an interesting legend that I believe is directly about human sexuality.

The mythological selkie is similar to a mermaid, except the selkie is a seal which can shed its skin and transform into a human being. The selkie can be either male or female, but most are female. Once they are in their human form, if their seal skin is taken or hidden from them, they are unable to turn back into a seal and thus cannot return to their home in the sea.

Now, as the legend goes, female selkies make great wives when in their human form and so men would hide the skins of selkies so they would stay with them, for if she found her skin she would right away put it back on, abandon her human husband and escape to the sea to seek out her male selkie lover/husband. There is an interesting twist though, in that even after she abandons her human husband she will return from time to time to visit the children which she had while with him.

The male selkie, according to the legend, has enormous powers of seduction. His favourite love interests are married women who are dissatisfied with their marriage, and often he seduces the wives of fisherman while their husbands are away at sea.

The legend of the selkie seems to be a way of telling about the nature of human sexuality. The “seal skin” represents human sexuality in its natural form, as is often discussed within circles of the Manosphere. The stories have elements of suppressing female sexuality, which makes for great, reliable wives, but when she is unrestrained with her sexuality, she instantly uses it and reverts back to her natural state… and in her natural state as a seal, she seeks out the cad, the male selkie who is like her, and is a master seducer who plays upon women’s emotions. This seems very much like the whole concept of “game” when understanding human sexuality. The male PUA is very much like the female in the way he seduces women - he understands about women’s emotions and how to manipulate them for his own benefit - which is very similar to what women tend to do with their sexuality when relating to men.

There are many myths and legends that discuss the nature of females. I think this is so because, as Philalethes often points out, women “are” society. What women want, society also wants. What women find desirable, society finds desirable. What women frown upon, society frowns upon. Women “are” society with males as mere interlopers in their midst, doing women’s bidding. Often women are referred to as having a herd mentality. I agree with this. And what is a herd made up of? Mostly females with only a few males, or sometimes just one male. The rest of the males – the outliers, or the betas that have been rejected by the herd, are always desperately competing to be let back into the herd though – and that means doing what the herd finds desirable. But anyway, since women “are” society, and since women absolutely despise having anything negative about their natures brought into daylight, they screech and shout and shame such things back into the deep darkness of the closet, and then society forgets all about them again as time goes on.

I think many times in the past, men have observed the nature of females (and males) and it seems to me that there is a consistency in what they find, and of course, it is very similar to what we have been discovering over the past years in our discussions of feminism and the destruction of the family. Every time I see a legend like the selkie one, I think to myself, “I’ll bet that comes from a man/men who 'figured things out' and also recognized the only way to send that message forward through time without being thwarted by the totalitarian nature of females, is to disguise it in a myth or a legend."

Something that I find interesting about the legend of the selkie though is how it makes mention that after the selkie abandons her human husband to go back to the sea, she will return from time to time to visit her human children. This legend is old, as most myths & legends obviously are, so of course it comes from a time when father-custody was the norm. It was not until the 1800’s that presumed father-custody was undermined, and presumed mother-custody took its place. I’ve read before that it was when this transformation was completed that the divorce rates began to slowly but steadily increase.

The whole “point” of marriage used to be father-custody. Back before the days of romance, when marriage used to be an economic contract, marriage & wedlock birth was all about putting children into the possession of men. In the rare event of a divorce, the custody of the child was automatically given to the husband. If the child was young, the mother would sometimes care for it until around 6 or 7 years old, and then would be forced to turn over the child to the father for education and proper discipline. The whole concept of wedlock birth is to create legitimate, father-custody children. When an “oops-pregnancy” would occur, the first question out of the woman’s mouth would be “will you give the child your name?” As in, will you make this child legitimate, and show it by giving him your name – and not a hyphenated pseudo name either!

Women don’t actually “need” marriage to have children. They can get boffed by any number of men through a variety of seductive techniques, of which I think we are all aware of. Men however, did “need” marriage to have children, and thus, children born within wedlock are to belong to the man, while children born out of wedlock are to belong to the woman.

The parts of the selkie legend that discuss how she would come back to visit her children even after abandoning her husband seems to support the concept that divorce rates began to increase after presumed custody was changed from the father to the mother. Also supporting this notion is the evidence put forth by present day “joint-custody” advocates, who state that divorce rates significantly drop when sole mother-custody is not expected. Of course, women file for most of divorces as we all know, and so not having sole custody of the children significantly deters them from destroying their families, and rather encourages them to try harder to make things work.

Sure, one can write this off to saying that removing the financial incentives to divorce will lower the divorce rates, but keep in mind another thing one will find about women and sexuality throughout history is that it has always been that women have ended relationships more often than men. It is part of human nature that women do this, regardless of financial incentives. It seems though that placing the children in a situation where it is presumed that the father will gain custody upon the ending of marriage, is enough to encourage women to over-ride this instinct what they have.

Wednesday, June 23, 2010

The economy seems stuck on a long line of “brink of collapse” circumstances, continually being propped up by various schemes and distortions of facts which seem more intent on fooling the population than presenting proper solutions. Oil is gushing from the bottom of the sea, a grave concern with the only silver lining being the Enviro-Marxists have quit screeching disinformation about “Climate Change” for a few months. Who wants to bet that the whole globaloney warming scam will be brushed under the carpet and conveniently forgotten? They were losing that battle to the internet anyways and must be grateful to have a real emergency to distract from their dishonesty.

On top of all these economic and environmental crises lies an even deeper set of problems: family break-down, the complete transformation of Patriarchy’s Marriage1.0 into the new Marxist version of Matriarchy’s Marriage 2.0, which we all know is a complete fraud and should be avoided like the plague. Our birth-rates are dropping which poses serious long-term dangers to our civilization as burdensome debts will force us to take third-world cultures into our own populations and we will witness the destruction of Western Civilization’s cultural pillars as we incorporate ever-more foreign principles into every sphere under the feel-good rainbow of “Multiculturalism.”

But also, the men’s movement seems to be at an impasse. There has been a lot of information that has been put forth over the past few years, and the MM’s message is most certainly much more in the consciousness of the population in general… however, the consciousness what we have arrived at is that we are f*cked as a civilization, and there’s not a thing we can do about it but rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic so we might better enjoy our demise as the band plays on. In this case, the band appears to be mostly female and they are playing most triumphantly, as after all, they are still employed and as long as they have their jobs and their violins, nothing can harm them.

As many of us know, this was no accident. Captain Marx and his crew set us upon this course many decades ago through a variety of techniques and manipulations. However, in the midst of all of this confusion is also unique opportunity. No-one will really say too much if we start breaking the Titanic’s tables and ripping up the floor-planking to build our own rafts, will they? The hole is already in the hull… the ship is doomed. Maybe while the officers are firing off their guns to ensure it be women and children first, the men should abandon the lifeboat queue altogether and Go Our Own Way.

Related to this idea is the often repeated principle that what is really going on with women right now is there are two sides to the argument: The women that wish for men to be collective slaves for the Daddy Government scheme of extracting male resources collectively to transfer to women and children (Feminist Women), and those women who wish for men to be their personal slaves, so that individual women and their children can directly extract resources from men (Conservative Women). The man-slaves are quite irrelevant in the whole discussion as, after all, we are mere fourth-class citizens, behind the children and the family dog… but amidst all the bickering, here is our chance to bolt out the back door and escape into the night!

But where do we go? What will we do? Ultimately we have to…? There are a plethora of questions which arise – what will the future hold?

After the feminists and gay rights activists have had their way with making marriage into anything which they wished it to be, marriage no longer has any meaning – fighting for it will be a fools errand as the marriage trail has been booby-trapped so much, it’s best to just leave it there for them to negotiate. They can have at ‘er!

Have a read of the following quotes:

“Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so… Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, and family, and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. … As a lesbian, I am fundamentally different from non-lesbian women. … In arguing for the right to legal marriage, lesbians and gay men would be forced to claim that we are just like heterosexual couples, have the same goals and purposes, and vow to structure our lives similarly. … We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society’s views of reality…” – Paula Ettelbrick, “Since When Is Marriage a Path to Liberation?”, in William Rubensteins, ed., Lesbians, Gay Men and the Law (New York: The New Press, 1993), pp. 401-405

“A middle ground might be to fight for same sex marriage and its benefits, and then, once granted, redefine the institution completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.” – Michelangelo Signorile, “Bridal Wave,” OUT Magazine, December/January 1994, p. 161

“[W]omen, like men, should not have to bear children… The destruction of the biological family, never envisioned by Freud, will allow the emergence of new men and women, different from any people who have previously existed.” – Alison Jagger, Political Philosophies of Women’s Liberation: Feminism and Philosophy, (Totowa, NJ: Littlefield Adams & co. 1977)

First of all, to the radicals intent on re-ordering society to their whims… thanks for asking the rest of us if we wanted society to be re-ordered!

But, let’s face it folks, these people have been successful in their goals. Over the past few decades, the entire concepts of family and marriage have been successfully subverted and the further steps of re-ordering the family with new societal mores are fast taking place.

Women have re-ordered the family according to their whim from one end, and the gay marriage movement has been re-ordering the hell out of it from the other end. It’s like a big orgy! Apparently the only people who are missing from the debate are heterosexual males… we get the whipping boy position, but we don’t speak for our interests.

Although, as I previously said: I don’t think men should fight for marriage. Hell no! I know a lot of times it seems that men pine for “the good old days of patriarchy,” but really, that is just an acknowledgement that patriarchy “works,” despite all its short-comings. And the short-comings were plenty. It has never been all that great of a deal for a man to be married, and even in the height of patriarchy, a woman could drive a man insane. To illustrate this, one needs only to read The Lamentations of Matheolus which was written around 700 years ago, to see that marriage has never been a bed of roses for men:

“This female clock is really driving me mad, for her quarrelsome din doesn't stop for a moment. The tongue of a quarrelsome woman never tires of chiming in. She even drowns out the sound of the church bell. A nagging wife couldn't care less whether her words are wise or foolish, provided that the sound of her own voice can be heard. She simply pursues her own ends; there's not a grain of sense in what she says; in fact she finds it impossible to have a decent thought. She doesn't want her husband to be the boss and finds fault with everything he does. Rightly or wrongly, the husband has no choice: he has to put up with the situation and keep his mouth shut if he wants to remain in one piece. No man, however self disciplined or clear-sighted he may be, can protect himself adequately against this. A husband has to like what the wife likes, and disapprove of what she hates and criticize what she criticizes so that her opinions appear to be right. So anyone who wishes to immolate himself on the altar of marriage will have a lot to put up with. Fifteen times, both day and night, he will suffer without respite and he will be sorely tormented. Indeed, I believe that this torture is worse than the torments of hell, with its chains, fire, and iron.”

Yikes! Some things are timeless! Why should men fight to return to that prison cell?

Patriarchal marriage was about providing for children and women within society in the past. Remember, they didn’t have birth control much beyond abstinence, and the job of homemaking was a lot more real work back in the days before electric stoves, microwaves and washing machines. Marriage was originally a way of attaching men’s productive output to women and children for the betterment of society as a whole. Daniel Amneus calls this “putting sex to work” in his online book, The Case for Father Custody.

The “engine” that made patriarchy work, however, was not “the civilizing effects of women” on men. That is a lie. Women have a de-civilizing effect when left to their own devices. Just have a look around the Matriarchy. The “engine” of patriarchy was giving men a vested interest in society through children.

Think about the move radicals have made to make all children “legitimate.” This was something that was done in Lenin’s Soviet Union as well. Why?

I remember once reading an op-ed piece, or a comment somewhere – I don’t quite remember where anymore - but the author had been around for a while, and was reflecting upon a conversation he once had with Daniel Amneus where they concluded that the “solution” to all of men’s problems essentially comes down to Father Custody. This is the “core” of the issue – not marriage, but the products of the marriage: the children.

Let them, the feminists and the gay marriage movement, fight over marriage and redefine it right into the dirt. They can have our prison if they want it so badly. What men ought to do is stand back and examine what parts of patriarchy are essential in making that engine work, and take the usable parts away while leaving the rest for the vultures to argue over.

Over the next while, I would like to examine this aspect a little closer and try to illustrate how it is that “Father Custody” is the root of the patriarchal engine, as well as the overall solution for men. Can women be left out of this equation? In the past, women were brought along with the deal of providing children for a man, and in this way, they were also provided for. However, as the “mancession” has aptly illustrated, women don’t need our labour anymore. We get the message: Men are irrelevant to women.

Quote: "Apparently you missed part II. Perhaps you'll feel differently after you read it."
Would have read it had I known; it should be linked on the first page. What’s perhaps most interesting about both articles is how little they differ from what we see from regular “feminists.” The flavour is exactly the same. Feminism is really nothing new, just the latest version of an immemorial attitude. What’s new is how completely it’s taken over.

Thoughts on the second article:

I don’t think you’re a lesbian–a ridiculous charge. I don’t think you hate men, but you don’t seem to understand them either. You have the female’s instinctive understanding of how to control men with praise and/or shame, but you don’t understand that the problem here is not that men disagree with you, it’s that other women disagree with you, and the men they control naturally do what they want. You may excoriate these men, but if they did what you want the women who own them would excoriate them more. We just aim to please, ma’am. Most men are idiots, indeed. But where did they come from? You may not be a feminist like Barbara Boxer (sheesh!), but you do share a basic attitude with her; you have more in common with her than I have with either of you. (“…pull over to the side of the road and change the air in her head." That’s great; I’ll have to remember it.)

Like you say, all the Supreme Court justices in 1973 were men. That’s exactly the point; they were doing what most American women wanted, what most of them still want. Personally, I’d love to see American men rebel and stop doing what women want–and instead give them what they need. But I don’t think it will happen anytime soon–not until women want what they need, rather than only what they desire.

In William Wallace’s day the women of his community had a different idea of what they wanted from their men, and so their men were different. Oh, and William Wallace lost, by the way; as I understand it, he was betrayed by fellow Scotsmen, whose wives probably didn’t make a big fuss about not having to sacrifice their comfortable lifestyles to resist the English. Even if they’d stood with him, they all probably would have lost anyway; the women of England had more husbands and sons to send into battle, and they wanted to add Scotland to the jewels on the British crown–now worn by the Queen.

Some of the comments on this forum may be laughable, but some are quite thoughtful; if you really want to know why men aren’t answering your clarion call, a lot could be deduced from what is here, both directly and indirectly. And your second article doesn’t answer any of the points raised–including mine. If you find my analysis outlandish (I know many do), then at least consider this one objective, verifiable fact: Since 1920, by their own insistence, American women have been taking part directly in the political process. Females are an absolute majority (something like 55%?) in the population, and an absolute majority of voters are women, both registered and actively voting. Therefore, even discounting any other possible influence women may have on politics (“I govern the Athenians, my wife governs me." – Themistocles, 528-462 BCE), what we have is what women want. Who am I to argue? I’ve just lost my longest, closest female friendship because I was careless enough to criticize “affirmative action.” I’ve been clawed enough.
.PreviousPhilalethes IndexNext

“Feminine traits are called weaknesses. People joke about them; fools ridicule them; but reasonable persons see very well that those traits are just the tools for the management of men, and for the use of men for female designs.” – Immanuel Kant [Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View; Southern Illinois University Press 1978, originally published in 1798]

Sunday, June 20, 2010

I had a girl friend once who taught me a lot. (A Japanese-American, BTW.) On one occasion I got into a big argument with her (about what, I forget), which ended when, finally, in extreme frustration, I exclaimed, “That’s not logical!” “I’m not logical,” she replied. I thought, Oh, that’s right. Deal with it.

There’s no answer for that, but for a man to know himself, who he is, and what he stands for; then she can take it or leave it. If she takes him, she will conform herself to the discipline of his logic–though she’ll continue to test him, so he’d better be sure his logic has integrity. If a man has to ask a woman to think for him, it just won’t work. If he’s so attached/dependent that he’s afraid he’ll lose her if he stands his ground–gently but firmly–he’s already lost anyway. And so is she.

What I’m coming to understand lately is that not only must I know where I stand, but past a certain point it’s useless to try to explain or persuade. Just state your position, and let her take it or leave it. ”Never argue with a woman” is not just a tired old joke; it’s real wisdom. If she’s worth your time, she’ll come around; if not, don’t waste your time. But in order to make this work, we males must be weaned, and few of us are these days.

Another time, another altercation, terminally exasperated, I asked her what she wanted. “I never know what I want until I get it,” she said. It was like one of those cartoon light bulbs went on over my head. “Aha,” I thought, “there speaks Woman.”

It’s not that they really want their men to be doormats; it’s that they need their men to be strong, and how do you determine how strong something is without testing it? They do this instinctively, not consciously; naturally they think they want to win, but when they win, they lose. And don’t know why they’re unhappy. Being a woman is not easy; they can’t figure themselves out either, because, in the short run, they make no sense. For a woman, a straight line is not the shortest distance. Because in the natural order, her man is supposed to be breaking the trail, while she follows his lead.

I remember in my hippie days, out in the California Mountains, watching a young woman follow a young man on a trail in the forest. It was an archetypal scene, like Sita following Rama, the Last of the Mohicans: everywoman following everyman.

I had another girl friend once who wanted to arm-wrestle. She was a tough girl, but when I beat her, she was satisfied. I could see it: I’d passed the test, and right away she started fitting herself to me. (In fact, before I knew it seemed we were planning to move in together, which was more than I’d bargained for. I really wasn’t thinking ahead–which is the man’s job. Took some contortions to get out of that one, and I haven’t seen her since.) This is the fundamental, archetypal relationship of the female to the male. “He chases her until she catches him.”

Even Martha Burk and all the other feminists who so adamantly insist on entry to the boys’ clubhouse are doing the same basic thing: testing men. If they win, they lose, because boys can’t become men in a female-dominated environment. And any environment with females present is fundamentally female-dominated, regardless of appearances.

Every boy starts out utterly dominated by a female, a domination which requires decisive change to escape. But if he doesn’t escape his mother’s gravity field, the next generation of women will have no men to marry. That’s essentially our present situation. Few American males (myself included) would I call “men” in the real sense.

A woman cannot show a man how to be a man; what she needs is for him to bring her something she doesn’t already have–or know. Watch birds courting.

This whole process works just fine, more or less, in other species; but among humans, so much more complicated, with so many “choices,” it’s gotten seriously derailed. It’s not easy being a man either, especially in our time when the traditional processes that used to make men of boys have been lost. The best our culture has to offer these days are military basic training and football–neither of which has ever appealed to me in the least. In Burma, traditionally a young man becomes a monk for at least a few months, up to a couple of years. Having experienced a similar form of Buddhist monastic life, I can say it can be an excellent molder of character, if properly understood and applied.

A friend of mine does summer camps for teenage boys, wherein they learn wilderness skills and suchlike. And how to act. One assignment sometimes given is to sit all day in one place without moving, which is essentially the same thing that Buddhist monks do. It works. Young men need something to push against–preferably themselves–that won’t really hurt them or anyone else.

I’d say that male consciousness tends toward abstraction and identifying principles, then ordering thinking and behaviour on that basis. While female consciousness is based on feeling and pragmatic in the short term. Each has its place and use, but they are not “equal”; one or the other must be in charge, and it matters absolutely which.

I’m a fan of Jefferson also, though I certainly recognize his character failings. There were “men in those days.” They were all classically educated, too.

"If you allow them [women] to pull away restraints and put themselves on an equality with their husbands, do you imagine that you will be able to tolerate them? From the moment that they become your fellows, they will become your masters." -- Cato the Censor
.PreviousPhilalethes IndexNext

Thursday, June 17, 2010

I guess you guys have noticed that I’m publishing a few of the “books” of some people from within the MM. Many of you have probably read them already. These guy’s names or their ideas keep popping up from time to time as they have written some really thought provoking stuff. They come from NiceGuy’s Forum where they have an excellent collection of posts under their “Best of” section. They have slowly been getting around more and more in “book form.” What I’d like to do is print them off in a numbered form, and then leave it together as a real “book,” but one where it is very easy to link these numbered concepts with a direct link within the No Ma’am blog so, that they are easily available to refer to.

Bonecrkr has been making the rounds as a book already, and Philalethes’ has written some amazing essays of his ponderings. Neither Bonecrkr nor Philalethes are active online anymore and most of these were written several years back already. And everyone in the MRM knows Zenpriest’s words… The ideas these gentlemen have put forth to others are some of the core philosophical principles that have been circulating around the web in regard to the MM. There are many, many more that have contributed and I’m sure if you asked any of these men, they would say that they got their ideas from reading other men’s ideas. That’s how our collective consciousness works, I suppose. We build off eachother’s ideas in the search for truth.

So, for the next few months, I’m going to print off one of their ideas/concepts each day, set by timer. Then when they are done they will be put together as a book on a section of my blog, the way I have a quotation library at the bottom of my blog. In order to create that one, I had to declare spring cleaning, but, I think just posting one of these fellows a day will be much better. Of course, I’ll be adding my own writing & posting in between. I’ve always really liked the theory of all of this stuff and how it relates into creating societies and civilizations etc. and I’ve often wished that I could quickly link to one of the specific ideas I got from these guys… .

A personal submission not on behalf of anyone else and these are my own views.

ROOTS OF THE AMERICAN CULTURE AND COMMUNITY IN DISARRAY

Political leaders, religious leaders, conservatives, families (especially fathers), judges, and interested lawyers, along with the vast majority of Americans who believe in ideals of family and country must understand that open WAR HAS BEEN DECLARED ON THEM AND THIS COUNTRY. And it’s coming from many of the institutions that our taxes are funding and supporting! In terms of financial and human costs this war on America has been the most destructive war in America’s history.

When Nikita Kruschev banged his shoe on the table and declared, ‘We shall destroy you from within’ during the infamous "Kitchen Debate" - he knew what he was talking about.

[Comparing the culture of the 50’s to that of 1998] violent criminal offenses have exploded upward by 700%. Premarital sex among 18 year olds has jumped from 30% of the population to 70%. Tax rates for a family of four have skyrocketed 500%, consuming a fourth of their income. Divorce rates have quadrupled. Illegitimate births among black Americans has soared - from approximately 23% to more than 68%. Illegitimacy itself has jumped from a nationwide total of 5% to nearly 30% nationwide - a rise of 600%. Cases of sexually transmitted diseases have risen 150%. Teen age pregnancies are up by several thousand percent and teen suicides have risen by 200%. Between 1950 and 1979 - serious crime committed by children under 15 has risen by 11,000%...

Most Americans would agree that our society has changed for the worst over the last 30 years.” [i]

While there has been progress in moving people off of the welfare rolls and into work, welfare still exists and many commentators note it exists to promote the breakdown of the family. A myriad of today’s social ills can be traced to the breakdown of the family and the undermining of marriage. Some of the testimony about the devastation of American families as a result of today’s culture war can be seen in several pieces of testimony I have submitted to the Human Resources Subcommittee:

US House Testimony on Welfare Reform Reauthorization Proposals, H.R. 4090. April 11, 2002, 109 citations or references - consequences of welfare practices on the family unit, and exploration of the 1996 welfare reform bill’s requirements for strengthening families and marriage (ttp://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy.asp?file=legacy/humres/107cong/4-11-02/records/billwood.htm)

US House Testimony on Teen Pregnancy prevention PRWORA, Public Law 104-193 (Hearing 107-48). November 15, 2001, 43 citations and references -- effects of fatherlessness and divorce on teen pregnancy. (ttp://waysandmeans.house.gov/legacy.asp?file=legacy/humres/107cong/11-15-01/Record/wmwood.htm)

US House Testimony on The "Hyde-Woolsey" child support bill, HR 1488 (Hearing 106-107, pages 94-103). March 16, 2000, 75 Citations. – Concerning problems with nearly every state's child support guidelines.

Along with this testimony, I have written legal briefs for the Federal District Court on the unconstitutionality of Ohio’s custody laws, a legal brief opposing psychology in the courtroom, and am developing an extensive historical review of the rise of our current “family” law system. During several years of research, a disturbing common thread continues to appear, tracing it back to its origins, it led to one Antonio Gramsci.
.THE PERSONAL IS THE POLITICAL.
In 1926, an Italian communist named Antonio Gramsci ended up in Mussolini’s prison after a return from Russia. While there, he wrote his “prison notebooks” and they laid out a plan for destroying Western faith and culture. His plans included ways to undermine and discourage Westerners through the intentional collapse of the existing social structure from within.
.
Gramsci advocated not only Marxist class warfare, which was economically focused, but also social and cultural warfare at the same time. His theories and the “slow march through the culture” (or institutions) which he envisioned to destroy the West are enshrined in current American social policy. His theories surrounding “hegemony” and a “counter-hegemony” were designed to destroy Western social structure and overthrow the “West” from within.
.
Hegemony, as defined by Gramsci is that widely accepted system of values, morals, ethics, and social structure which holds a society together and creates a cohesive people. Western social structures holding society together (i.e. “the hegemony”) include: authority, morality, sexual restraint, monogamous marriage, personal responsibility, patriotism, national unity, community, tradition, heredity, education, conservatism, language, Christianity, law, and truth. His theory called for media and communications to slowly co-opt the people with the “counter-hegemony” propaganda message.
.

"... Hegemony operates culturally and ideologically through the institutions of civil society which characterises mature liberal-democratic, capitalist societies. These institutions include education, the family, the church, the mass media, popular culture, etc." [ii]

.
Through a systematic attack of these institutions he termed the “slow march through the culture,” Gramsci theorized that once these institutions were sufficiently damaged the people would insist on an end to the madness allowing totalitarian control of the Western world. A similar form of these theories was tried before America by the National Socialists (Nazis) headed by Hitler.
.
Many of the Gramscian Marxist Communist ideals have been implemented in government, education, and law. In practice, women have become the vehicle deceived and used in this quest to tear down and destroy Western culture. This has been done by enlisting their help in ripping apart marriage and the traditional family.
.

Since economic Marxism was a failure, Gramsci reasoned that the only way to topple… Western institutions was by, what he called, a “long march through the culture.” He repackaged Marxism in terms of a… “cultural war”…

.

“Gramsci hated marriage and the family, the very founding blocks of a civilized society. To him, marriage was a plot, a conspiracy... to perpetuate an evil system that oppressed women and children. It was a dangerous institution, characterized by violence and exploitation, the forerunner of fascism and tyranny. Patriarchy served as the main target of the cultural Marxists. They strove to feminize the family with legions of single and homosexual mothers and ‘fathers’ who would serve to weaken the structure of civilized society.”

.

…[A]nother cultural Marxist (George Lukacs) brought the Gramscian strategy to the schools… As deputy commissioner in Hungary… his first task was to put radical sex education in the schools… it was the best way to destroy traditional sexual morality, and weaken the family. Hungarian children learned… free love, sexual intercourse, and the archaic nature of middle-class family codes, the obsolete nature of monogamy, and the irrelevance of organized religion which deprived man of pleasure. Children were urged to deride and ignore… parental authority, and precepts of traditional morality. If this sounds familiar, it is because this is what is happening in our public… schools.

.

…Under the rubric of ‘diversity,’ its hidden goal is to impose a uniformity of thought and behavior on all Americans. The cultural Marxists, often teachers, university professors and administrators, TV producers, newspaper editor and the like, serve as gatekeepers by keeping all traditional and positive ideas, especially religious ideas, out of the public marketplace. Herbert Marcuse was largely responsible for bringing cultural Marxism to the United States… He believed that all taboos, especially sexual ones, should be relaxed. “Make love, not war!” was his battle cry that echoed through ivy-covered college campuses all over America. His methodology for rebellion included the deconstruction of the language, the infamous “what does ‘is’ mean?” which fostered the destruction of the culture. By confusing and obliterating word meanings, he helped cause a breakdown in the social conformity of the nation, especially among the… young of America...

.

Marcuse said that women should be the cultural proletariat who transformed Western society. They would serve as the catalyst for the new Marxist Revolution. If women could be persuaded to leave their traditional roles as the transmitters of culture, then the traditional culture could not be transmitted to the next generation.

.

What better way to influence the generations than by subverting the traditional roles of women? The Marxists rightfully reasoned that the undermining of women could deal a deadly blow to the culture.

.

If women were the target, then the Cultural Marxists scored a bullseye… Women have traded the domestic tranquility of family and the home for the power surge of the boardroom and the sweaty release of casual sex. Divorce court statistics, wife and child abandonment, abortion and even spousal murder can be laid at [the feminists] doorstep to a large degree. [iii]

.
Careful study and review shows that Gramscian Marxist Communism encompasses today’s “feminist” movement. [iv] Feminism’s goals are to use women to undermine and destroy the culture by abandoning marriage and by not carrying on the critical task of “transmitting the culture” to the next generation. Today’s feminists use women to advance the destruction of women, children, and families while convincing them they are somehow a “victim” of the patriarchal structure. And the patriarchal structure is nothing but Orwellian NewSpeak for the social structures and institutions that have kept Western civilization together long before the social decay we see today.
.
America’s socialists and communists make no pretenses about their goals to promote the destruction of a cohesive society by advancing a welfare state and the complete breakdown of the family. Socialists have openly adopted the “counter hegemony” taught by Gramsci which is designed to destroy Western culture. “[T]he stronger the ‘counter-hegemonic’ strength of unions and left parties, the stronger the welfare state… When we argue for ‘decommodifying’ (i.e., taking out of private market provision) such basic human needs as healthcare, childcare, education, and housing, we have in mind a decentralized and more fully accountable welfare state then [sic] exists in Western democracies.” [v] This statement comes from one of the MANY American college professors indoctrinating students today. As noted by William Gregg in the New American:
.

Writing in the Winter 1996 issue of the Marxist journal Dissent, Michael Walzer enumerated some of the cultural victories won by the left since the 1960s:

"The visible impact of feminism."

"The effects of affirmative action."

"The emergence of gay rights politics, and … the attention paid to it in the media."

"The acceptance of cultural pluralism."

"The transformation of family life," including "rising divorce rates, changing sexual mores, new household arrangements — and, again, the portrayal of all this in the media."

"The progress of secularization; the fading of religion in general and Christianity in particular from the public sphere — classrooms, textbooks, legal codes, holidays, and so on."

"The virtual abolition of capital punishment."

"The legalization of abortion."

"The first successes in the effort to regulate and limit the private ownership of guns."

.

Significantly, Walzer admitted… these victories were imposed upon our society by "liberal elites," rather than… "by the pressure of a mass movement or a majoritarian party." These changes "reflect the leftism or liberalism of lawyers, judges, federal bureaucrats, professors, school teachers, social workers, journalists, television and screen writers — not the population at large," noted Walzer… [T]he left focused on "winning the Gramscian war of position."

.

Cultural commentator Richard Grenier [notes Gramsci formulated] “the doctrine that those who want to change society must change man’s consciousness, and that in order to accomplish this they must first control the institutions by which that consciousness is formed: schools, universities, churches, and, perhaps above all, art and the communications industry. It is these institutions that shape and articulate ‘public opinion,’ the limits of which few politicians can violate with impunity. Culture, Gramsci felt, is not simply the superstructure of an economic base — the role assigned to it in orthodox Marxism — but is central to a society. His famous battle cry is: capture the culture."

.

Gramsci recognized that the chief [obstacles] impeding… the triumph of Marxism were… those institutions, customs, and habits identified by Washington and the other Founding Fathers as indispensable to ordered liberty — such as the family, private initiative, self-restraint, and principled individualism. But Gramsci focused particularly on what Washington described as the "indispensable supports" of free society — religion and morality. In order to bring about a revolution, Gramsci wrote, "The conception of law will have to be freed from every remnant of transcendence and absoluteness, practically from all moralist fanaticism." [vi]

.
Gramsci’s Marxist communist philosophy, with its goal and aim to completely destroy “Western” civilization is best summed up in the feminist phrase “THE PERSONAL IS THE POLITICAL!”
. FAMILY LAW, CHILD SUPPORT, AND WELFARE FROM MARXISM?.
Many people would be shocked to learn that much of the current “family law” system we have today, which is at the heart of so much of our modern social upheaval and America’s “welfare state,” was born in the Soviet Union. Still more shocking would be the revelation that when the Soviet Union discovered its system was a disastrous failure, it instituted serious reforms in the early 1940’s to try to restore the family and the country. The Soviets made these changes when fatherlessness (which included children from divorced fathers) reached around 7 million children and their social welfare structure (day cares, kindergartens, state children’s facilities, etc.) was overburdened. Yet in America, some studies suggest that we are approaching 11 or 12 million such children. All the while, the social and financial costs of welfare and fatherlessness are just now gaining more widespread attention. America’s fatherlessness crisis is primarily by judicial making with the cooperation of the legions of lawyers and bureaucrats who profit from family destruction which rips America apart.
.
Unfortunately, the Soviet reforms came too late and never brought about the extent of social reconstruction that would have allowed recovery from its self-inflicted social destruction. It was unable to stave off its widely celebrated collapse when the Berlin wall came down. Even though the Soviets tried in vain to restore the social values they had worked so hard to eradicate, America only pays “lip service” to much-needed massive social reform. Serious social reform has been largely absent from political debate. On the other hand, the systematic deconstruction of all of the social values that had made our nation great is being pursued passionately as one of our nation's primary socio-political goals.
.
“Family law” is one of the key tools of the “counter-hegemony” which is used to advance the social welfare state through the promotion of the social structural collapse of America. The early Soviet system focused on personal happiness and self-centered fulfillment with its roots in class warfare. When it was determined that this type of class warfare directed at the family was a complete failure, the Soviets worked quickly to restore the traditional nuclear family in the 1940’s. Shortly after this, the NAWL (National Association of Women Lawyers) began their push for adopting these failed Soviet policies in America.[vii] America’s version of “family law” has adopted much of the early Soviet failed version of class warfare, while adopting new and more insidious Gramscian versions with gender, cultural, and social warfare components.
.

When the Bolsheviki came into power in 1917 they regarded the family… with fierce hatred, and set out… to destroy it… [O]ne of the first decrees of the Soviet Government abolished the term 'illegitimate children... by equalizing the legal status of all children, whether born in wedlock or out of it… The father of a child is forced to contribute to its support, usually paying the mother a third of his salary in the event of a separation… At the same time a law was passed which made divorce [very quick]… at the request of either partner in a marriage…

.

[Marriage became a game where it] was not… unusual… for a boy of twenty to have had three or four wives, or for a girl of the same age to have had three or four abortions. [T]he peasants… bitterly complained: 'Abortions cover our villages with shame. Formerly we did not even hear of them.'

.

Many women… found marriage and childbearing a profitable occupation. They formed connections with the sons of well-to-do peasants and then blackmailed the father for the support of the children... The law has created still more confusion because… women can claim support for children born many years ago.

.

…Both in the villages and in the cities the problem of the unmarried mother has become very acute and provides a severe and annoying test of Communist theories.

.

…Another new point was that wife and husband would have an equal right to claim support from the other… The woman would have the right to demand support for her child even if she lived with several men during the period of conception; but, in contrast to previous practice, she or the court would choose one man who would be held responsible for the support. Commissar Kursky seemed especially proud of this point because it differed so much from the 'burgeois customs' of Europe and America.

.

Another speaker objected to the proposed law on the ground that some women would take advantage of its liberal provisions to form connections with wealthy men and then blackmail them for alimony. [viii]

.
The Federal Government continues to participate by paying the states incentives encouraging them to practice these draconian Soviet style, anti-family, child destroying policies. What a frightening use of our “tax dollars at work” to undermine and destroy the social order of America. Even going so far as to pay incentives on a slightly reformed version of Article 81 of The Russian Family Code. This was promoted in the United States by Irwin Garfinkel as “The Wisconsin Model” for child support and welfare reform. “The Wisconsin Model then became a center-piece for the national child support and welfare reform movement.” [ix]
. ADOPTING THE FAILED SOVIET ATTEMPT TO DESTROY THE FAMILY.
Instead of our constitutionally guaranteed “Republican form of government,” we now have a thoroughly entrenched Marxist Communist judiciary in the civil court system masquerading as “family law.” America’s family law courts are no longer about the law, they represent complete perversions of numerous legal maxims and common law traditions that American law was founded upon. [x] These abandoned maxims represent the “hegemony” of American culture and historical tradition in civil family matters. The reprehensible evil of being rewarded for one’s wrongs, and of punishing the innocent have been firmly entrenched in the state’s family courts.
.
No-fault divorce, “the child’s best interests,” and other components of family law in America were imported from the worst of the Soviet family law system. For example from a 1975 Louisville Law School review:
.

“Few members of the American legal community are aware of the fact that the Soviet Union has had, for some period of time, what can be described as a no-fault divorce legal system… [A]t a meeting with a group of Soviet lawyers in 1972, one of them asked, “Is it for a long time that you (California) have that system?” When informed of the January 1, 1970 effective date of the California law she remarked, “I think it is the influence of our law… [T]here are a number of similarities between Soviet and California divorce laws that suggest a “borrowing” or a remarkable coincidence.” (pg 32)

.

“For the Bolsheviks, with their Marxist disdain for reli­gion, the influence of the ecclesiastical authorities over the family was an outrage. Since the family represented the major institution through which the traditions of the past were transmitted from generation to generation, the new re­gime had to destroy the old bourgeois notions of the family and the home. There was also a very urgent practical reason for disassociating family relations from the influence of the religious authorities… [T]he first task of the new regime in relation to the family was to break the power of the church and the husband.” (pg 33)

.

“Birth alone was declared the basis of family ties, and all legal discrimi­nation against illegitimate children was abolished... Early Soviet policy was intended to at­tack these evils [of “patriarchy”] and to transfer the care, education and main­tenance of children from home to society. This would mean the end of the family’s socialization functions, and would remove the child from the conservative atmosphere of the patriarchal family to a setting that could be entirely con­trolled by the regime.” (pg 34)

.

The Soviet press reported in the mid-thirties that promiscu­ity flourished... juvenile delinquency mounted, and statistical studies showed that the major source of delin­quents was the broken or inattentive home… Additional public homes for children were established, and propaganda cam­paigns sought to persuade the public that a strong family was the most communistically inspired one. (pg 38, 39)

.

There was also the matter of seven to nine million fatherless and homeless children, according to Russian estimates of the early twenties. In derogation of Marxist ideology, the state had been unable to assist single mothers, and there existed almost no children’s homes, nurseries or kindergartens. Because of more pressing tasks and limited personnel and material resources the state had not been able to fulfill the conditions Engels had specified for extrafamilial facilities. (pg 40)

.

More seriously, anti-family policies were leading to a situation where many children in the first Soviet urban generation simply lacked the kind of socializing experience to fit them intellectually or emotionally to the new society the regime was attempting to build, with its emphasis upon self-discipline and control, perseverance, steadiness, punctuality and accuracy. While the family influence had been under­mined, extrafamilial agencies had failed to provide a workable substitute, leaving the child prey to the noxious and deviant influences of “the street.” (pg 41) [xi]

.
The US Library of Congress Country Studies on Romania also shows direct parallels noting;
.

“Family law in socialist Romania was modeled after Soviet family legislation… [I]t sought to undermine the influence of religion on family life. [Previously] the church was the center of community life, and marriage, divorce, and recording of births were matters for religious authorities. Under communism these events became affairs of the state, and legislation designed to wipe out the accumulated traditions and ancient codes was enacted. The communist regime required marriage to be legalized in a civil ceremony at the local registry prior to, or preferably instead of, the customary church wedding.

.

Because of the more liberal procedures, the divorce rate grew dramatically, tripling by 1960, and the number of abortions also increased rapidly. Concern for population reproduction and future labor supplies prompted the state to revise the Romanian Family Code to foster more stable personal relationships and strengthen the family. At the end of 1966, abortion was virtually outlawed, and a new divorce decree made the dissolution of marriage exceedingly difficult.

. INDOCTRINATING LAWYERS AND JUDGES TO DESTROY AMERICA.
Gramsci wrote, "The conception of law will have to be freed from every remnant of transcendence and absoluteness, practically from all moralist fanaticism.” Law schools across America teach Gramscian “critical theory” as well as other communist ideals. A Westlaw or Lexis search reveals not just dozens, but hundreds and hundreds of legal articles, law reviews, and other materials on feminism, homosexuality, and various forms of Gramscian class “victimology.”
.

"The revolutionary forces have to take civil society before they take the state, and therefore have to build a coalition of oppositional groups united under a hegemonic banner which usurps the dominant or prevailing hegemony." [xii]

.
Today’s Gramscian Marxists have numerous “oppositional groups” headed by lawyers and promoted by judges and bureacrats. They advance such “counter-hegemonic” (culturally corrosive and culturally destructive) positions as homosexuality, abortion, the complete FRAUD of the non-existent “separation of church and state,” the (it only applies to destroying marriage and relationships) Violence Against Women Act, “outcome based education,” and the fictitious “global warming.” They passionately HATE the initiatives that undermine their attempts to destroy America such as Title IX reform, Faith based initiatives, the 300 million for marriage, vouchers and accountability for education reform, and the Ten commandments along with ANY other reference to a moral Judeo-Christian code, and private property rights.
.
High profile court rulings openly display this Gramscian Marxist theory in practice: the attack on the pledge of allegiance, the ACLU suing Judge Roy Moore over the Ten Commandments, and the recent Lawrence v. Texas pro-homosexual ruling. At the root of all of these rulings and many others is a violation of the judge’s oath to uphold the constitution. That constitution says that we have a Republican form of government, NOT a socialist or communist form.
. CONCLUSION.
Today’s Marxist Communists operate in law, government, religion, media, entertainment and education. They use Orwellian NewSpeak with words such as “tolerance” which actually means intolerance of things that prevent the destruction of all social structures and societal “norms”. Gramscians preach the religion of division, class warfare and social warfare while spouting their hatred of anything traditional, conservative, moral, or values centered – their battle cry is “the personal is the political.” They want all of Western culture completely destroyed and centralized government control erected in the place of the structure they seek to tear apart and discard. The fruits of the culture war they have engaged on America can be seen in the corrosive remnants of broken families, broken children, filled prisons, and a host of other ills underwritten by America’s taxpayers.
.
Those who deeply care about this country and our constitution must fearlessly engage in this culture war--; the war for America’s heart and soul. It’s not too late yet. There is still a critical mass and majority of Americans who are not ready for the horrors of the type of communism or national socialism that Gramscians promote. No form of Marxism or communism (even its most radical form of National Socialism) has ever survived without totalitarian control. If the support were there for these Marxist Communists and National Socialists, history has shown that they would not hesitate to attempt a forceful or violent overthrow of American government.
.
"If the family trends of recent decades are extended into the future, the result will be not only growing uncertainty within marriage, but the gradual elimination of marriage in favor of casual liaisons oriented to adult selfishness. The problem… is that children will be harmed, adults will probably be no happier, and the social order could collapse." [xiii] “In his book, The American Sex Revolution, Harvard sociologist Pitirim Sorokin reviewed the history of societies through the ages, and found that none survived after they ceased honoring and upholding the institution of marriage between a man and a woman.” [xiv] Marcus Tullius Cicero, in a speech in the Roman senate recorded by Sallust said;
.

"A nation can survive its fools and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly against the city. But the traitor moves among those within the gates freely, his sly whispers rustling through all alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears no traitor; he speaks in the accents familiar to his victim, and he wears their face and their garments and he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation; he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of a city; he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to be feared. The traitor is the plague."

. POLICY IMPLICATIONS.
Gramsci’s “march through the culture” can be turned back once the roots and methods are known. Recognizing the foundations of the current class and culture warfare, promoted in many levels of government, law, religion, media, and education provides relatively easy answers to solve these problems and to turn back the tide of their corruption and destruction.
.

Institute non-coercive national unity and patriotism in public policy. The national unity issue destroys the divisive class warfare while reviving patriotism helps to restore some of the “hegemony” the Marxists so passionately hate.

Mandate abstinence training in schools for states to receive health funds. Stop allowing the natural inhibitions of children to sexual advances to be torn down by the current trend of pro-sexual education brought to them by their teachers who are also authority figures.

Conservative politicians should take some of their campaign time and effort to tap into and lobby for more than just money. Conservatives must lobby large businesses to partner with inner city churches and schools to create programs of opportunity in disadvantaged areas. This takes the race baiting and class warfare issue away from the left, and gets socialist government programs out of the involvement in people’s lives. [xv]

Tie clear mission statements to EVERY government program and agency which include: promoting traditional marriage and family, restoring national pride, reducing divorce, reducing illegitimacy, promoting abstinence, and encouraging strong morals and values. Force a public debate on these issues and it will destroy the liberal Marxist establishment. Ever since welfare reform the liberal establishment has been slowly crumbling. Press the issues and accelerate their demise.

CAREFULLY identify several congressional staff members who have a proven track record of being pro-family, with proven integrity, and have shown a level of frustration over today’s social problems. Assign them to a special research project to study Gramsci’s version of Marxist communism and how it has been implemented in America. Publish their reports and develop strategies based on those reports. (And if the lefties cry “McCarthy,” let the public debates begin! An honest reading of McCarthy’s record completely vindicates him and exposes them!)

Press the Judiciary committee to amend Title 18 of the US Code to create provisions stating that no state or federal judge shall have any form of immunity whatsoever for engaging in actions which produce or promote taxpayer fraud. For any such act or acts, they shall be subject to both criminal prosecution and they shall be subject to suit in their personal capacity. Let the judges and lawyers scream about “independence” and then insist that they must interpret “independence” to mean that they should be free to break the law and commit fraud against the taxpayers of the United States.

If Title 18 cannot be amended, then insert the provisions under Title 42 related to the Public Health and Welfare.

End taxpayer funding of PBS. Expand libel and slander laws to include distortions, manipulations, or unbalanced reporting in television and cable news programs. Let the trial lawyers have a field day with the liberal media.

Codify in the USC the mission of senior level bureaucrats and their guiding principles with explicit provisions noting personal liability for not adhering to these provisions. Codify the requirement for annual reports by heads of agencies demonstrating how they have complied with these requirements. For example:
-- Make the HHS Director’s mission something like “to work to restore traditional marriage and family while reducing the number of single-parent and broken families who need to collect welfare or child support.” Make it a mandatory reporting requirement on how this mission is being fulfilled.

___________________________

[i] King, Jennifer. Who are the Real Radicals? Rightgrrl, December 1998. A brief exposition of Antonio Gramsci http://www.rightgrrl.com/jennifer1.html
[ii]Strinati, Dominic (1995), An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture, pg. 168-169. Routledge, London.
[iii] Borst, William, Ph.D. American History. A Nation of Frogs, The Mindszenty Report Vol. XLV-No.1 (January 2003) Cardinal Mindszenty was imprisoned by the Nazi’s and later by the Communists in Hungary. Online version can be seen at http://www.mindszenty.org/report/2003/mr_0103.pdf
[iv] “Marxism and Feminism are one, and that one is Marxism” Heidi Hartmann and Amy Bridges, The unhappy marriage of Marxism and Feminism. -- opening page of Chapter 1, Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press (paperback in 1991)
“Sexuality is to feminism what work is to Marxism…” -- Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press. Page 3
Feminism, Socialism, and Communism are one in the same, and Socialist/Communist government is the goal of feminism. -- Toward a Feminist Theory of the State. Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1989, First Harvard University Press. Page 10
"Our culture, including all that we are taught in schools and universities, is so infused with patriarchal thinking that it must be torn up root and branch if genuine change is to occur. Everything must go - even the allegedly universal disciplines of logic, mathematics, and science, and the intellectual values of objectivity, clarity, and precision on which the former depend." A quote from Daphne Patai and Noretta Koertge, "Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies" (New York, Basic Books, 1994), p. 116
[v] Schwartz, Joseph. Toward a Democratic Socialism: Theory, Strategy, and Vision. Joseph Schwartz, a member of the National Executive Committee of the Democratic Socialists of America, teaches political science at Temple University.
[vi] Grigg, William. Toward the Total State.The New American Vol. 15, No. 14. July 5, 1999. http://www.thenewamerican.com/tna/1999/07-05-99/vo15no14_total.htm
[vii] Selma Moidel Smith, A Century of Acheivement: The Centennial of the National Association of Women Lawyers, pg 10. (1999); See also ABA’s Family Law Quarterly, 33 Fam. L.Q. 501, 510-511. Family Law and American Culture – Women Lawyers in Family Law, Section B. The Crusade for No-Fault Divorce. (Fall, 1999)
[viii] The Atlantic Monthly; July 1926; The Russian Effort to Abolish Marriage; Volume 138, No. 1; page 108-114.
[ix] The Child Support Guideline Problem, Roger F. Gay, MSc and Gregory J. Palumbo, Ph.D. May 6, 1998.
[x] Jus ex injuria non oritur. 4 Bin 639 -- A right cannot arise from a wrong; Lex nemini operatur iniquum; nemini facit injuriam. Jenk. Cent. 22.—The law works injustice to no one; does injury to no one; Lex deficere non potest in justitia exhibenda. Co. Lit. 197.—The law cannot be defective in dispensing justice; Lex non deficit in justitia exhibenda. Jenk. Cent. 31.— The law is not defective in justice; Commodum ex injurie sue non habere debet. Jenk. Cent. 161. -- No man ought to derive any benefit of his own wrong; Lex non favet delicatorum votis. 9 Co. 58.—The law favours not the vows of the squeamish; Nemo punitur sine injuria, facto, seu defalto. 2 Inst. 287.—No one is to be punished unless for some injury, deed, or default; Legis constructio non facit injuriam. Co. Lit. 183.—The construction of law does no injury; Nemo punitur sine injuria facto, seu defalto. 2 Co. Inst. 287. -- No one is punished unless for some wrong act or default
[xi]No-Fault Divorce: Born In The Soviet Union? University of Louisville School of Law, Journal Of Family Law. Vol. 14, No. 1 (1975). ppg. 32-41
[xii] Strinati, Dominic (1995), An Introduction to Theories of Popular Culture, pg. 169. Routledge, London.
[xiii] David Popenoe, "Modern Marriage: Revisiting the Cultural Script," Promises to Keep, 1996, p. 248.
[xiv] Linda Bowles. Damage for the Children. June 13, 2000. Worldnet Daily online.
[xv] A similar program which has been very successful is DAPCEP (the Detroit Area Pre-College Engineering Program http://www.dapcep.org/ ). The difference is that a program to undermine Gramsci should have BOTH parent’s involvement as its centerpiece. While it would be ideal if they were married, requiring BOTH parents is a start in the right direction.

I for one am increasingly tired of the constantly escalating level of sexual white noise in the culture. In summertime a lot of females parade around practically naked. For a long time I wondered why it is that women seem to have an overwhelming compulsion to bare their bodies in public; in winter I’ve seen them sometimes with serious gooseflesh when they could just as easily wear a little more clothing and be comfortably warm. Finally I recalled reading in Desmond Morris’ classic The Naked Ape (highly recommended) the simple, scientific observation that while other species’ sexual signals may be olfactory (scents–which is why dogs urinate on fireplugs) or auditory (birdsong), human sexual signals concentrate on our most developed sense, i.e. sight. When a woman bares another half-inch of skin, it’s never an accident: it’s an escalation, either of an attempt to capture male attention, or of competition with other females to do the same.

If human sexual signals were transmitted in sound, our present situation would be literally deafening.

Once again, women don’t make sense, at least on first observation: they behave in a manner obviously calculated (though often subconsciously so) to attract male attention, then they complain that males “can’t keep their eyes to themselves.” It’s just more testing. If nothing else, it’s a test of the male’s ability to deal with the stress caused by female irrationality. “I’m not logical. Deal with it.” What does not destroy you … makes you a promising candidate as a mate. From the point of view of Nature, their (and our) ultimate Boss, this makes perfect sense. Nature knows no restraint; she will escalate every contest to the ultimate.

In “traditional” cultures, women generally had the sense to discipline their collective behaviour, to keep the sexual noise to a level that wouldn’t cause a total collapse of social order. This is the origin of all the restraints which feminists complain so bitterly about, from marriage to the seclusion of women to the burkha: simply varying, often desperate attempts to govern the overwhelming sexual power of the female so that we can have human societies, rather than the life of chimpanzees.

In our “modern,” revolutionary culture, these restraints have been broken down, abandoned, and it’s a free-for-all. Women themselves are caught in the situation: as the level of competition rises, even women who don’t feel inclined to act like prostitutes feel they have no choice. Few women other than Camille Paglia are willing to admit that under the “patriarchy” women were far safer to walk the streets at night than they are now, in our “enlightened” social order, where women are “free to be themselves.” The simple fact is that (most) women, like children, on their own don’t know what’s best for their own welfare.

People who come to our country from traditional cultures say that our women dress like prostitutes: why advertise so aggressively unless you’re selling what you’re showing? But of course, as our “modern” culture spreads across the world, traditional cultures’ restraining patterns are breaking down as well. A recent issue of National Geographic shows this quite graphically, with a cover photo of an Indian woman and her daughter: the mother is dressed in a traditional sari, the daughter is dressed like a typical American teenage wanna-be whore, complete with pout. No culture can last when this behaviour becomes the norm.

Some years ago I had the opportunity to meet a woman shaman from the Iroquois nation. She was impressive: one of the few real, grownup women I’ve encountered. Calm, restrained, gentle, completely aware and in control of herself, she glowed with power. I sat in a room full of women at her feet, and was struck by the behaviour of a middle-aged, white-haired Anglo female sitting across from me. She didn’t know how to comport herself; she had her legs up so her underwear was clearly displayed to the room. I thought, “This is the best model our culture can offer as an adult woman?” It was sad.

The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her.

The truth is, the history of humankind is a history of desperate attempts to escape the unconscious, unrestrained rule of woman, and thus the absolute rule of unconscious, ruthless Nature, by creating social constructs which, whatever their imperfections, at least offer us a life less “nasty, brutish and short” than that of the animal world from which we came–and back into which we may fall at any time. This is the real meaning of “Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

What's Wrong With The World -- G.K. Chesterton (excerpts)

Sex and Character -- by Otto Weininger

The Encyclopedia Marxofeminist

Feminist "Equality" Includes The Loss of Free Speech

If you are afraid to speak against tyranny, then you are already a slave. To attempt to silence a man is to pay him homage, for it is an acknowledgement that his arguments are both impossible to answer and impossible to ignore. -- JBR Yant

"We can't expect the American People to jump from Capitalism to Communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of Socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have Communism." -- Nikita Krushchev

THE ANIMAL FARM REALITY OF "FEMINIST EQUALITY:"

"Differences [between men and women], including the products of social inequality, MAKE UNEQUAL TREATMENT NOT UNEQUAL AT ALL." -- Catharine MacKinnon, "Reflections on Sex Equality Under Law," Yale Law Journal, 1991

The Demographic Trap

"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within." -- Josef Stalin

Back to the Bible

"The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into smaller states and all-national isolation, not only to bring the nations closer to each other, but also to merge them." -- V.I. Lenin

No Thanks - We'd Rather Be Canadian!

"Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one" ~Benjamin Franklin

Man-Made Global Warming is a Hoax being used to bring about Global Communism (Globalization)

"Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of 'emergency'. It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. In the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries of Europe, it was the cry of men striving to get on horseback. And 'emergency' became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains." -- Herbert Hoover

Just Doing My Part to Fight Global Warming!

"The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order." -- Mikhail Gorbachev, quoted in "A Special Report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes Its War On Mankind", by Marilyn Brannan, Associate Editor, Monetary & Economic Review, 1996, p. 5

Rule by Science

Philosophy Corner

“Dialectical thought is related to vulgar thinking in the same way that a motion picture is related to a still photograph. The motion picture does not outlaw the still photograph but combines a series of them according to the laws of motion.” -- Leon Trotsky

Dialectical Thought is a Cornerstone of Marxism, and Feminism (Because They Are One In the Same)

The Marxist Dialectic's Zig-Zag

Wishing to advance in a room full of people, I do not walk through the aisle and straight toward my goal. Nor do I move slowly through the crowd shaking hands with friends and acquaintences, discussing points of interest, gradually nearing the objective. The dialectical pathway is different. It consists of a resolute forward advance followed by an abrubt turn and retreat. Having retreated a distance there is another turn and advance. Through a series of forwardbackward steps the goal is approached. To advance thus is to advance dialectically. The Communist goal is fixed and changeless, but their direction of advance reverses itself from time to time. They approach their goal by going directly away from it a considerable portion of the time. Lenin wrote the textbook, One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. Chinese Communist schoolchildren are taught to do the dialectical march taking three steps forward and two steps back. If we judge where the Communists are going by the direction in which they are moving we will obviously be deceived -- Dr. Fred Schwarz, President of Christian Anti-Communism Crusade

The Pussy Pass

All's Fair In Love and War

The Matriarchy Lives! (Click Picture)

"I am most anxious to enlist everyone who can speak or write to join in checking this mad, wicked folly of 'Women's Rights', with all its attendant horrors, on which her poor feeble sex is bent, forgetting every sense of womanly feelings and propriety. Feminists ought to get a good whipping. Were woman to 'unsex' themselves by claiming equality with men, they would become the most hateful, heathen and disgusting of beings, and would surely perish without male protection." -- Queen Victoria, 1870